Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 1531	control, N = 771	treatment, N = 761	p-value2
age	151	50.77 ± 12.58 (25 - 74)	50.87 ± 12.44 (25 - 74)	50.67 ± 12.81 (28 - 73)	0.925
Unknown		2	2	0
gender	153				0.882
f		118 (77%)	59 (77%)	59 (78%)
m		35 (23%)	18 (23%)	17 (22%)
occupation	153				0.810
day_training		2 (1.3%)	2 (2.6%)	0 (0%)
full_time		20 (13%)	10 (13%)	10 (13%)
homemaker		14 (9.2%)	7 (9.1%)	7 (9.2%)
other		2 (1.3%)	0 (0%)	2 (2.6%)
part_time		27 (18%)	13 (17%)	14 (18%)
retired		41 (27%)	20 (26%)	21 (28%)
self_employ		7 (4.6%)	4 (5.2%)	3 (3.9%)
student		2 (1.3%)	0 (0%)	2 (2.6%)
t_and_e		2 (1.3%)	1 (1.3%)	1 (1.3%)
unemploy		36 (24%)	20 (26%)	16 (21%)
marital	153				0.912
cohabitation		1 (0.7%)	0 (0%)	1 (1.3%)
divore		16 (10%)	10 (13%)	6 (7.9%)
in_relationship		4 (2.6%)	2 (2.6%)	2 (2.6%)
married		45 (29%)	23 (30%)	22 (29%)
none		75 (49%)	36 (47%)	39 (51%)
seperation		3 (2.0%)	2 (2.6%)	1 (1.3%)
widow		9 (5.9%)	4 (5.2%)	5 (6.6%)
edu	153				0.148
bachelor		36 (24%)	13 (17%)	23 (30%)
diploma		30 (20%)	20 (26%)	10 (13%)
hd_ad		5 (3.3%)	4 (5.2%)	1 (1.3%)
postgraduate		13 (8.5%)	6 (7.8%)	7 (9.2%)
primary		9 (5.9%)	3 (3.9%)	6 (7.9%)
secondary_1_3		17 (11%)	10 (13%)	7 (9.2%)
secondary_4_5		36 (24%)	19 (25%)	17 (22%)
secondary_6_7		7 (4.6%)	2 (2.6%)	5 (6.6%)
fam_income	153				0.896
10001_12000		6 (3.9%)	2 (2.6%)	4 (5.3%)
12001_14000		8 (5.2%)	4 (5.2%)	4 (5.3%)
14001_16000		8 (5.2%)	3 (3.9%)	5 (6.6%)
16001_18000		4 (2.6%)	2 (2.6%)	2 (2.6%)
18001_20000		8 (5.2%)	6 (7.8%)	2 (2.6%)
20001_above		29 (19%)	16 (21%)	13 (17%)
2001_4000		21 (14%)	12 (16%)	9 (12%)
4001_6000		16 (10%)	6 (7.8%)	10 (13%)
6001_8000		13 (8.5%)	7 (9.1%)	6 (7.9%)
8001_10000		11 (7.2%)	5 (6.5%)	6 (7.9%)
below_2000		29 (19%)	14 (18%)	15 (20%)
medication	153	135 (88%)	68 (88%)	67 (88%)	0.976
onset_duration	150	15.23 ± 10.51 (0 - 56)	15.82 ± 11.37 (0 - 56)	14.61 ± 9.56 (0 - 35)	0.479
Unknown		3	0	3
onset_age	148	35.74 ± 13.93 (10 - 65)	34.89 ± 12.61 (10 - 61)	36.62 ± 15.21 (14 - 65)	0.452
Unknown		5	2	3
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 1531	control, N = 771	treatment, N = 761	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	153	3.17 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)	3.19 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)	3.14 ± 1.13 (1 - 5)	0.792
recovery_stage_b	153	17.92 ± 2.76 (8 - 24)	17.87 ± 2.87 (8 - 24)	17.97 ± 2.66 (13 - 24)	0.817
ras_confidence	153	29.97 ± 5.09 (15 - 45)	29.74 ± 4.78 (15 - 40)	30.20 ± 5.40 (18 - 45)	0.580
ras_willingness	153	11.78 ± 2.01 (5 - 15)	11.68 ± 1.99 (5 - 15)	11.89 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)	0.501
ras_goal	153	17.41 ± 3.05 (11 - 25)	17.22 ± 2.85 (11 - 24)	17.61 ± 3.24 (11 - 25)	0.437
ras_reliance	153	13.21 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)	13.05 ± 2.76 (5 - 18)	13.37 ± 3.03 (7 - 20)	0.500
ras_domination	153	9.88 ± 2.40 (3 - 15)	10.12 ± 2.29 (3 - 15)	9.64 ± 2.49 (3 - 15)	0.224
symptom	153	29.84 ± 9.09 (14 - 56)	29.75 ± 9.34 (14 - 55)	29.93 ± 8.89 (15 - 56)	0.903
slof_work	153	22.51 ± 4.81 (10 - 30)	22.83 ± 4.32 (13 - 30)	22.18 ± 5.27 (10 - 30)	0.407
slof_relationship	153	25.21 ± 5.97 (9 - 35)	24.75 ± 5.94 (9 - 35)	25.67 ± 6.01 (11 - 35)	0.344
satisfaction	153	20.46 ± 7.13 (5 - 35)	19.65 ± 6.77 (5 - 33)	21.29 ± 7.43 (5 - 35)	0.156
mhc_emotional	153	10.84 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)	10.57 ± 3.67 (3 - 17)	11.12 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)	0.375
mhc_social	153	14.99 ± 5.59 (5 - 30)	14.74 ± 5.57 (5 - 30)	15.24 ± 5.63 (5 - 29)	0.584
mhc_psychological	153	21.90 ± 6.39 (6 - 36)	21.68 ± 6.09 (7 - 36)	22.13 ± 6.72 (6 - 36)	0.660
resilisnce	153	16.54 ± 4.62 (6 - 30)	16.17 ± 4.11 (6 - 24)	16.91 ± 5.08 (6 - 30)	0.324
social_provision	153	13.52 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)	13.12 ± 2.58 (5 - 20)	13.92 ± 3.13 (5 - 20)	0.085
els_value_living	153	16.97 ± 3.11 (5 - 25)	16.61 ± 2.88 (6 - 22)	17.33 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)	0.153
els_life_fulfill	153	12.75 ± 3.37 (4 - 20)	12.31 ± 3.23 (5 - 19)	13.18 ± 3.48 (4 - 20)	0.110
els	153	29.71 ± 5.90 (9 - 45)	28.92 ± 5.45 (11 - 38)	30.51 ± 6.25 (9 - 45)	0.095
social_connect	153	26.50 ± 9.42 (8 - 48)	26.88 ± 9.01 (8 - 48)	26.11 ± 9.86 (8 - 48)	0.611
shs_agency	153	14.24 ± 5.10 (3 - 24)	13.81 ± 4.69 (3 - 21)	14.68 ± 5.47 (3 - 24)	0.288
shs_pathway	153	16.03 ± 4.00 (4 - 24)	15.61 ± 3.85 (5 - 24)	16.46 ± 4.12 (4 - 24)	0.189
shs	153	30.27 ± 8.68 (7 - 48)	29.42 ± 8.16 (8 - 45)	31.14 ± 9.16 (7 - 48)	0.219
esteem	153	12.58 ± 1.61 (9 - 20)	12.57 ± 1.60 (9 - 18)	12.58 ± 1.63 (10 - 20)	0.977
mlq_search	153	14.82 ± 3.52 (3 - 21)	14.55 ± 3.42 (6 - 21)	15.11 ± 3.61 (3 - 21)	0.327
mlq_presence	153	13.37 ± 4.31 (3 - 21)	13.17 ± 3.97 (4 - 21)	13.58 ± 4.65 (3 - 21)	0.558
mlq	153	28.20 ± 6.90 (6 - 42)	27.71 ± 6.33 (10 - 40)	28.68 ± 7.45 (6 - 42)	0.387
empower	153	19.24 ± 4.20 (6 - 30)	18.88 ± 4.07 (11 - 30)	19.61 ± 4.32 (6 - 30)	0.289
ismi_resistance	153	14.49 ± 2.47 (5 - 20)	14.48 ± 2.13 (10 - 20)	14.50 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)	0.961
ismi_discrimation	153	11.63 ± 3.08 (5 - 20)	11.95 ± 2.94 (5 - 20)	11.32 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)	0.206
sss_affective	153	9.99 ± 3.53 (3 - 18)	10.01 ± 3.45 (3 - 18)	9.96 ± 3.62 (3 - 18)	0.927
sss_behavior	153	9.68 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)	9.86 ± 3.74 (3 - 18)	9.50 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)	0.553
sss_cognitive	153	8.22 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)	8.23 ± 3.67 (3 - 18)	8.20 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)	0.952
sss	153	27.88 ± 10.12 (9 - 54)	28.10 ± 10.00 (9 - 54)	27.66 ± 10.31 (9 - 54)	0.786
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.19	0.133	2.93, 3.46
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.050	0.189	-0.420, 0.320	0.791
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.086	0.209	-0.323, 0.495	0.681
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.393	0.297	-0.189, 0.975	0.188
	Pseudo R square	0.019
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	17.9	0.324	17.2, 18.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.104	0.459	-0.797, 1.00	0.822
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.433	0.461	-1.34, 0.470	0.350
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.05	0.657	-0.235, 2.34	0.113
	Pseudo R square	0.013
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.7	0.582	28.6, 30.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.457	0.825	-1.16, 2.07	0.580
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.951	0.645	-0.313, 2.21	0.145
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.925	0.919	-0.876, 2.73	0.317
	Pseudo R square	0.023
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.7	0.229	11.2, 12.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.219	0.325	-0.417, 0.856	0.500
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.353	0.255	-0.853, 0.148	0.171
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.654	0.364	-0.059, 1.37	0.076
	Pseudo R square	0.016
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.2	0.355	16.5, 17.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.384	0.503	-0.602, 1.37	0.446
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.032	0.455	-0.860, 0.923	0.945
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.787	0.648	-0.483, 2.06	0.228
	Pseudo R square	0.017
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.1	0.331	12.4, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.316	0.469	-0.603, 1.24	0.501
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.357	0.377	-0.383, 1.10	0.347
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.611	0.537	-0.442, 1.66	0.259
	Pseudo R square	0.020
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.1	0.267	9.59, 10.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.472	0.379	-1.21, 0.270	0.214
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.305	0.362	-1.02, 0.405	0.402
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.37	0.516	0.357, 2.38	0.010
	Pseudo R square	0.023
symptom	(Intercept)	29.8	1.041	27.7, 31.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.181	1.478	-2.71, 3.08	0.903
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.599	0.925	-2.41, 1.21	0.519
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.14	1.318	-3.72, 1.45	0.392
	Pseudo R square	0.004
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.8	0.548	21.8, 23.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.647	0.778	-2.17, 0.877	0.407
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.511	0.599	-1.69, 0.664	0.397
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.775	0.854	-0.898, 2.45	0.367
	Pseudo R square	0.003
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	24.8	0.678	23.4, 26.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.918	0.961	-0.966, 2.80	0.341
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.508	0.718	-1.91, 0.899	0.481
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.820	1.022	-1.18, 2.82	0.425
	Pseudo R square	0.011
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.6	0.816	18.0, 21.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.64	1.158	-0.629, 3.91	0.158
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.747	0.868	-0.954, 2.45	0.392
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.667	1.237	-1.76, 3.09	0.592
	Pseudo R square	0.021
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.6	0.429	9.73, 11.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.547	0.609	-0.647, 1.74	0.370
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.277	0.428	-0.562, 1.12	0.519
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.094	0.610	-1.10, 1.29	0.878
	Pseudo R square	0.007
mhc_social	(Intercept)	14.7	0.657	13.5, 16.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.497	0.932	-1.33, 2.32	0.595
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.507	0.731	-0.925, 1.94	0.490
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.653	1.041	-1.39, 2.69	0.532
	Pseudo R square	0.009
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.7	0.755	20.2, 23.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.456	1.072	-1.64, 2.56	0.671
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.850	0.835	-0.787, 2.49	0.312
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.149	1.189	-2.18, 2.48	0.901
	Pseudo R square	0.006
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.2	0.519	15.2, 17.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.739	0.736	-0.703, 2.18	0.316
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.361	0.618	-0.851, 1.57	0.561
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.65	0.880	-0.079, 3.37	0.065
	Pseudo R square	0.038
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.1	0.328	12.5, 13.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.804	0.465	-0.108, 1.72	0.086
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.615	0.396	-1.39, 0.161	0.124
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.882	0.564	-0.224, 1.99	0.122
	Pseudo R square	0.039
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.6	0.358	15.9, 17.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.719	0.508	-0.278, 1.72	0.159
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.385	0.411	-0.421, 1.19	0.352
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.154	0.586	-0.993, 1.30	0.793
	Pseudo R square	0.019
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.3	0.377	11.6, 13.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.873	0.535	-0.176, 1.92	0.105
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.512	0.373	-0.220, 1.24	0.175
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.013	0.531	-1.03, 1.05	0.981
	Pseudo R square	0.022
els	(Intercept)	28.9	0.673	27.6, 30.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.59	0.955	-0.281, 3.46	0.098
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.902	0.647	-0.366, 2.17	0.167
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.095	0.921	-1.71, 1.90	0.918
	Pseudo R square	0.024
social_connect	(Intercept)	26.9	1.087	24.8, 29.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.778	1.542	-3.80, 2.24	0.615
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.610	1.037	-1.42, 2.64	0.558
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.39	1.477	-6.29, -0.500	0.024
	Pseudo R square	0.018
shs_agency	(Intercept)	13.8	0.578	12.7, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.879	0.821	-0.729, 2.49	0.286
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.189	0.580	-0.947, 1.33	0.745
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.574	0.826	-1.04, 2.19	0.489
	Pseudo R square	0.013
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.6	0.448	14.7, 16.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.850	0.635	-0.395, 2.10	0.183
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.239	0.463	-0.669, 1.15	0.608
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.010	0.659	-1.30, 1.28	0.988
	Pseudo R square	0.012
shs	(Intercept)	29.4	0.977	27.5, 31.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.73	1.387	-0.989, 4.45	0.214
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.419	0.961	-1.46, 2.30	0.664
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.551	1.369	-2.13, 3.23	0.688
	Pseudo R square	0.014
esteem	(Intercept)	12.6	0.172	12.2, 12.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.008	0.245	-0.472, 0.487	0.976
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.168	0.264	-0.348, 0.685	0.525
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.000	0.375	-0.735, 0.736	0.999
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.5	0.397	13.8, 15.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.560	0.563	-0.544, 1.66	0.321
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.431	0.509	-0.567, 1.43	0.400
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.647	0.725	-2.07, 0.775	0.375
	Pseudo R square	0.005
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.2	0.488	12.2, 14.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.410	0.692	-0.946, 1.77	0.554
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.576	0.559	-0.520, 1.67	0.306
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.089	0.796	-1.65, 1.47	0.911
	Pseudo R square	0.005
mlq	(Intercept)	27.7	0.790	26.2, 29.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.970	1.121	-1.23, 3.17	0.388
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.998	0.925	-0.816, 2.81	0.284
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.701	1.318	-3.28, 1.88	0.596
	Pseudo R square	0.005
empower	(Intercept)	18.9	0.475	18.0, 19.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.722	0.674	-0.600, 2.04	0.286
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.689	0.477	-0.246, 1.62	0.153
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.720	0.680	-2.05, 0.612	0.293
	Pseudo R square	0.007
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.5	0.278	13.9, 15.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.019	0.395	-0.755, 0.794	0.961
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.146	0.377	-0.885, 0.594	0.700
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.847	0.537	-0.206, 1.90	0.118
	Pseudo R square	0.012
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	11.9	0.354	11.3, 12.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.632	0.502	-1.62, 0.352	0.210
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.154	0.396	-0.930, 0.622	0.698
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.206	0.564	-1.31, 0.899	0.715
	Pseudo R square	0.014
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.0	0.400	9.23, 10.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.052	0.567	-1.16, 1.06	0.926
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.115	0.433	-0.964, 0.735	0.792
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.06	0.617	-2.27, 0.153	0.091
	Pseudo R square	0.014
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	9.86	0.419	9.04, 10.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.357	0.595	-1.52, 0.809	0.549
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.240	0.451	-1.12, 0.644	0.596
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.470	0.642	-1.73, 0.789	0.467
	Pseudo R square	0.009
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.23	0.417	7.42, 9.05
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.036	0.591	-1.20, 1.12	0.951
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.296	0.463	-0.611, 1.20	0.525
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.20	0.659	-2.49, 0.093	0.073
	Pseudo R square	0.010
sss	(Intercept)	28.1	1.149	25.9, 30.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.446	1.631	-3.64, 2.75	0.785
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.137	1.129	-2.35, 2.08	0.904
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.52	1.608	-5.67, 0.630	0.121
	Pseudo R square	0.011
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.19 (95% CI [2.93, 3.46], t(214) = 24.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.32], t(214) = -0.27, p = 0.791; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.27])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.49], t(214) = 0.41, p = 0.681; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.42])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.98], t(214) = 1.32, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.48) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.87 (95% CI [17.24, 18.50], t(214) = 55.20, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.00], t(214) = 0.23, p = 0.822; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.34, 0.47], t(214) = -0.94, p = 0.347; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 2.34], t(214) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.82])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.74 (95% CI [28.60, 30.88], t(214) = 51.14, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.16, 2.07], t(214) = 0.55, p = 0.580; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.41])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.31, 2.21], t(214) = 1.47, p = 0.141; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.43])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.88, 2.73], t(214) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.53])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.68 (95% CI [11.23, 12.12], t(214) = 51.03, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.86], t(214) = 0.68, p = 0.499; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.15], t(214) = -1.38, p = 0.167; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.07])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.37], t(214) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.68])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.22 (95% CI [16.53, 17.92], t(214) = 48.55, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.37], t(214) = 0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.44])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.92], t(214) = 0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.48, 2.06], t(214) = 1.21, p = 0.225; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.66])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.05 (95% CI [12.40, 13.70], t(214) = 39.49, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.24], t(214) = 0.67, p = 0.500; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.10], t(214) = 0.95, p = 0.344; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.66], t(214) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.57])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.12 (95% CI [9.59, 10.64], t(214) = 37.89, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.27], t(214) = -1.25, p = 0.213; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.12])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.02, 0.40], t(214) = -0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.17])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [0.36, 2.38], t(214) = 2.65, p = 0.008; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [0.15, 1.02])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.31e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.75 (95% CI [27.71, 31.79], t(214) = 28.57, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-2.71, 3.08], t(214) = 0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.33])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-2.41, 1.21], t(214) = -0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.14, 95% CI [-3.72, 1.45], t(214) = -0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.16])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.83 (95% CI [21.76, 23.91], t(214) = 41.66, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.17, 0.88], t(214) = -0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.18])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.66], t(214) = -0.85, p = 0.394; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.45], t(214) = 0.91, p = 0.364; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.51])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.75 (95% CI [23.43, 26.08], t(214) = 36.53, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.97, 2.80], t(214) = 0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.90], t(214) = -0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.15])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.18, 2.82], t(214) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.48])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.65 (95% CI [18.05, 21.25], t(214) = 24.08, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.64, 95% CI [-0.63, 3.91], t(214) = 1.42, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.95, 2.45], t(214) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.76, 3.09], t(214) = 0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.43])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.57 (95% CI [9.73, 11.41], t(214) = 24.62, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.74], t(214) = 0.90, p = 0.369; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.56, 1.12], t(214) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.30])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.29], t(214) = 0.15, p = 0.878; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.34])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.74 (95% CI [13.45, 16.03], t(214) = 22.44, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.32], t(214) = 0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.41])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.94], t(214) = 0.69, p = 0.487; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.39, 2.69], t(214) = 0.63, p = 0.530; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.47])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.68 (95% CI [20.19, 23.16], t(214) = 28.70, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.64, 2.56], t(214) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.49], t(214) = 1.02, p = 0.309; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-2.18, 2.48], t(214) = 0.13, p = 0.900; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.38])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.17 (95% CI [15.15, 17.19], t(214) = 31.18, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.18], t(214) = 1.00, p = 0.315; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.57], t(214) = 0.58, p = 0.560; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.65, 95% CI [-0.08, 3.37], t(214) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.74])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.47, 13.76], t(214) = 40.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.72], t(214) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.62, 95% CI [-1.39, 0.16], t(214) = -1.55, p = 0.120; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.99], t(214) = 1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.68])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.61 (95% CI [15.91, 17.31], t(214) = 46.35, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.72], t(214) = 1.41, p = 0.158; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.54])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.19], t(214) = 0.94, p = 0.349; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.30], t(214) = 0.26, p = 0.792; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.41])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.31 (95% CI [11.57, 13.05], t(214) = 32.66, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.92], t(214) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.24], t(214) = 1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-1.03, 1.05], t(214) = 0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = 3.80e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.32])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.92 (95% CI [27.60, 30.24], t(214) = 42.95, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.28, 3.46], t(214) = 1.67, p = 0.096; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.58])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.17], t(214) = 1.39, p = 0.163; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.71, 1.90], t(214) = 0.10, p = 0.918; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.32])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.88 (95% CI [24.75, 29.01], t(214) = 24.73, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-3.80, 2.24], t(214) = -0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.42, 2.64], t(214) = 0.59, p = 0.556; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.39, 95% CI [-6.29, -0.50], t(214) = -2.30, p = 0.022; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.05])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.81 (95% CI [12.67, 14.94], t(214) = 23.87, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.49], t(214) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.33], t(214) = 0.33, p = 0.744; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.04, 2.19], t(214) = 0.70, p = 0.487; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.43])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.61 (95% CI [14.73, 16.49], t(214) = 34.87, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.10], t(214) = 1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.53])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.15], t(214) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.28], t(214) = -0.02, p = 0.988; Std. beta = -2.57e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.42 (95% CI [27.50, 31.33], t(214) = 30.10, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.73, 95% CI [-0.99, 4.45], t(214) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.52])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.30], t(214) = 0.44, p = 0.663; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.13, 3.23], t(214) = 0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.57 (95% CI [12.23, 12.91], t(214) = 72.88, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 7.52e-03, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.49], t(214) = 0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = 5.03e-03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.33])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.68], t(214) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.46])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.10e-04, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.74], t(214) = 8.27e-04, p > .999; Std. beta = 2.08e-04, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.49])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.75e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.55 (95% CI [13.77, 15.32], t(214) = 36.65, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.66], t(214) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.57, 1.43], t(214) = 0.85, p = 0.397; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-2.07, 0.77], t(214) = -0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.22])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.21, 14.12], t(214) = 27.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.77], t(214) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.67], t(214) = 1.03, p = 0.303; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.65, 1.47], t(214) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.35])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.71 (95% CI [26.17, 29.26], t(214) = 35.08, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-1.23, 3.17], t(214) = 0.87, p = 0.387; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.82, 2.81], t(214) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.70, 95% CI [-3.28, 1.88], t(214) = -0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.27])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.53e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.88 (95% CI [17.95, 19.81], t(214) = 39.72, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.04], t(214) = 1.07, p = 0.284; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.62], t(214) = 1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-2.05, 0.61], t(214) = -1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.15])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.93, 15.03], t(214) = 52.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.79], t(214) = 0.05, p = 0.961; Std. beta = 7.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.32])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.59], t(214) = -0.39, p = 0.699; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.24])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.90], t(214) = 1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.77])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.95 (95% CI [11.25, 12.64], t(214) = 33.76, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.62, 0.35], t(214) = -1.26, p = 0.208; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.11])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.62], t(214) = -0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.31, 0.90], t(214) = -0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.29])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.01 (95% CI [9.23, 10.80], t(214) = 25.05, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.06], t(214) = -0.09, p = 0.926; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.73], t(214) = -0.26, p = 0.791; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.21])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.15], t(214) = -1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.04])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.86 (95% CI [9.04, 10.68], t(214) = 23.50, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.52, 0.81], t(214) = -0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.22])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.64], t(214) = -0.53, p = 0.594; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.17])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.73, 0.79], t(214) = -0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.21])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.23 (95% CI [7.42, 9.05], t(214) = 19.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.20, 1.12], t(214) = -0.06, p = 0.951; Std. beta = -9.85e-03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.20], t(214) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.20, 95% CI [-2.49, 0.09], t(214) = -1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.03])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.10 (95% CI [25.85, 30.36], t(214) = 24.45, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-3.64, 2.75], t(214) = -0.27, p = 0.784; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.27])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.35, 2.08], t(214) = -0.12, p = 0.903; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.52, 95% CI [-5.67, 0.63], t(214) = -1.57, p = 0.117; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.06])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	691.995	702.176	-342.997	685.995
recovery_stage_a	random	6	692.622	712.984	-340.311	680.622	5.373	3	0.146
recovery_stage_b	null	3	1,071.971	1,082.152	-532.986	1,065.971
recovery_stage_b	random	6	1,074.544	1,094.906	-531.272	1,062.544	3.427	3	0.330
ras_confidence	null	3	1,308.453	1,318.634	-651.227	1,302.453
ras_confidence	random	6	1,303.580	1,323.942	-645.790	1,291.580	10.873	3	0.012
ras_willingness	null	3	892.595	902.776	-443.297	886.595
ras_willingness	random	6	893.851	914.213	-440.926	881.851	4.743	3	0.192
ras_goal	null	3	1,101.903	1,112.084	-547.952	1,095.903
ras_goal	random	6	1,103.253	1,123.615	-545.627	1,091.253	4.650	3	0.199
ras_reliance	null	3	1,060.665	1,070.846	-527.332	1,054.665
ras_reliance	random	6	1,058.451	1,078.813	-523.225	1,046.451	8.214	3	0.042
ras_domination	null	3	987.312	997.493	-490.656	981.312
ras_domination	random	6	984.586	1,004.947	-486.293	972.586	8.726	3	0.033
symptom	null	3	1,530.047	1,540.228	-762.024	1,524.047
symptom	random	6	1,532.208	1,552.570	-760.104	1,520.208	3.839	3	0.279
slof_work	null	3	1,271.090	1,281.270	-632.545	1,265.090
slof_work	random	6	1,275.774	1,296.136	-631.887	1,263.774	1.316	3	0.725
slof_relationship	null	3	1,361.328	1,371.509	-677.664	1,355.328
slof_relationship	random	6	1,365.182	1,385.544	-676.591	1,353.182	2.146	3	0.543
satisfaction	null	3	1,447.485	1,457.666	-720.743	1,441.485
satisfaction	random	6	1,447.571	1,467.933	-717.786	1,435.571	5.914	3	0.116
mhc_emotional	null	3	1,153.043	1,163.223	-573.521	1,147.043
mhc_emotional	random	6	1,156.946	1,177.308	-572.473	1,144.946	2.096	3	0.553
mhc_social	null	3	1,354.965	1,365.146	-674.482	1,348.965
mhc_social	random	6	1,357.496	1,377.858	-672.748	1,345.496	3.469	3	0.325
mhc_psychological	null	3	1,414.883	1,425.063	-704.441	1,408.883
mhc_psychological	random	6	1,418.199	1,438.561	-703.100	1,406.199	2.684	3	0.443
resilisnce	null	3	1,268.515	1,278.696	-631.257	1,262.515
resilisnce	random	6	1,261.769	1,282.131	-624.885	1,249.769	12.746	3	0.005
social_provision	null	3	1,063.819	1,074.000	-528.910	1,057.819
social_provision	random	6	1,061.716	1,082.077	-524.858	1,049.716	8.104	3	0.044
els_value_living	null	3	1,093.586	1,103.767	-543.793	1,087.586
els_value_living	random	6	1,094.632	1,114.993	-541.316	1,082.632	4.954	3	0.175
els_life_fulfill	null	3	1,099.419	1,109.600	-546.709	1,093.419
els_life_fulfill	random	6	1,098.775	1,119.137	-543.388	1,086.775	6.644	3	0.084
els	null	3	1,351.496	1,361.677	-672.748	1,345.496
els	random	6	1,350.234	1,370.596	-669.117	1,338.234	7.262	3	0.064
social_connect	null	3	1,562.423	1,572.604	-778.211	1,556.423
social_connect	random	6	1,560.069	1,580.431	-774.034	1,548.069	8.354	3	0.039
shs_agency	null	3	1,286.123	1,296.304	-640.062	1,280.123
shs_agency	random	6	1,288.685	1,309.046	-638.342	1,276.685	3.439	3	0.329
shs_pathway	null	3	1,176.282	1,186.463	-585.141	1,170.282
shs_pathway	random	6	1,179.878	1,200.240	-583.939	1,167.878	2.404	3	0.493
shs	null	3	1,514.184	1,524.365	-754.092	1,508.184
shs	random	6	1,517.085	1,537.446	-752.542	1,505.085	3.099	3	0.377
esteem	null	3	799.297	809.478	-396.648	793.297
esteem	random	6	804.474	824.836	-396.237	792.474	0.823	3	0.844
mlq_search	null	3	1,148.132	1,158.313	-571.066	1,142.132
mlq_search	random	6	1,152.658	1,173.020	-570.329	1,140.658	1.474	3	0.688
mlq_presence	null	3	1,226.345	1,236.526	-610.172	1,220.345
mlq_presence	random	6	1,230.177	1,250.539	-609.089	1,218.177	2.168	3	0.538
mlq	null	3	1,440.783	1,450.964	-717.392	1,434.783
mlq	random	6	1,444.940	1,465.302	-716.470	1,432.940	1.843	3	0.606
empower	null	3	1,199.396	1,209.577	-596.698	1,193.396
empower	random	6	1,202.561	1,222.922	-595.280	1,190.561	2.835	3	0.418
ismi_resistance	null	3	1,000.896	1,011.076	-497.448	994.896
ismi_resistance	random	6	1,002.968	1,023.330	-495.484	990.968	3.927	3	0.269
ismi_discrimation	null	3	1,083.034	1,093.215	-538.517	1,077.034
ismi_discrimation	random	6	1,086.125	1,106.487	-537.063	1,074.125	2.909	3	0.406
sss_affective	null	3	1,137.324	1,147.505	-565.662	1,131.324
sss_affective	random	6	1,135.849	1,156.211	-561.925	1,123.849	7.475	3	0.058
sss_behavior	null	3	1,153.391	1,163.572	-573.695	1,147.391
sss_behavior	random	6	1,156.005	1,176.367	-572.002	1,144.005	3.386	3	0.336
sss_cognitive	null	3	1,155.645	1,165.825	-574.822	1,149.645
sss_cognitive	random	6	1,157.180	1,177.541	-572.590	1,145.180	4.465	3	0.215
sss	null	3	1,588.181	1,598.362	-791.090	1,582.181
sss	random	6	1,588.322	1,608.684	-788.161	1,576.322	5.858	3	0.119

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	77	3.19 ± 1.17		76	3.14 ± 1.17		0.791	0.053
recovery_stage_a	2nd	34	3.28 ± 1.14	-0.090	33	3.62 ± 1.14	-0.503	0.218	-0.360
recovery_stage_b	1st	77	17.87 ± 2.84		76	17.97 ± 2.84		0.822	-0.050
recovery_stage_b	2nd	34	17.44 ± 2.67	0.211	33	18.59 ± 2.67	-0.301	0.078	-0.561
ras_confidence	1st	77	29.74 ± 5.10		76	30.20 ± 5.10		0.580	-0.165
ras_confidence	2nd	34	30.69 ± 4.35	-0.342	33	32.07 ± 4.34	-0.675	0.195	-0.498
ras_willingness	1st	77	11.68 ± 2.01		76	11.89 ± 2.01		0.500	-0.200
ras_willingness	2nd	34	11.32 ± 1.72	0.321	33	12.20 ± 1.71	-0.274	0.038	-0.794
ras_goal	1st	77	17.22 ± 3.11		76	17.61 ± 3.11		0.446	-0.193
ras_goal	2nd	34	17.25 ± 2.81	-0.016	33	18.42 ± 2.80	-0.411	0.089	-0.588
ras_reliance	1st	77	13.05 ± 2.90		76	13.37 ± 2.90		0.501	-0.194
ras_reliance	2nd	34	13.41 ± 2.50	-0.219	33	14.34 ± 2.49	-0.594	0.130	-0.570
ras_domination	1st	77	10.12 ± 2.34		76	9.64 ± 2.34		0.214	0.295
ras_domination	2nd	34	9.81 ± 2.16	0.191	33	10.71 ± 2.16	-0.663	0.091	-0.559
symptom	1st	77	29.75 ± 9.14		76	29.93 ± 9.14		0.903	-0.046
symptom	2nd	34	29.15 ± 7.25	0.153	33	28.20 ± 7.22	0.443	0.590	0.244
slof_work	1st	77	22.83 ± 4.81		76	22.18 ± 4.81		0.407	0.251
slof_work	2nd	34	22.32 ± 4.08	0.198	33	22.45 ± 4.07	-0.103	0.898	-0.050
slof_relationship	1st	77	24.75 ± 5.95		76	25.67 ± 5.95		0.341	-0.298
slof_relationship	2nd	34	24.25 ± 4.99	0.165	33	25.98 ± 4.97	-0.101	0.155	-0.565
satisfaction	1st	77	19.65 ± 7.16		76	21.29 ± 7.16		0.158	-0.441
satisfaction	2nd	34	20.40 ± 6.02	-0.201	33	22.70 ± 6.00	-0.380	0.118	-0.620
mhc_emotional	1st	77	10.57 ± 3.77		76	11.12 ± 3.77		0.370	-0.299
mhc_emotional	2nd	34	10.85 ± 3.10	-0.152	33	11.49 ± 3.09	-0.203	0.397	-0.351
mhc_social	1st	77	14.74 ± 5.76		76	15.24 ± 5.76		0.595	-0.158
mhc_social	2nd	34	15.25 ± 4.92	-0.161	33	16.40 ± 4.91	-0.369	0.339	-0.365
mhc_psychological	1st	77	21.68 ± 6.63		76	22.13 ± 6.63		0.671	-0.127
mhc_psychological	2nd	34	22.53 ± 5.64	-0.237	33	23.13 ± 5.63	-0.278	0.661	-0.168
resilisnce	1st	77	16.17 ± 4.55		76	16.91 ± 4.55		0.316	-0.276
resilisnce	2nd	34	16.53 ± 3.98	-0.134	33	18.92 ± 3.98	-0.748	0.015	-0.890
social_provision	1st	77	13.12 ± 2.88		76	13.92 ± 2.88		0.086	-0.467
social_provision	2nd	34	12.50 ± 2.53	0.357	33	14.19 ± 2.53	-0.155	0.007	-0.979
els_value_living	1st	77	16.61 ± 3.14		76	17.33 ± 3.14		0.159	-0.405
els_value_living	2nd	34	17.00 ± 2.71	-0.217	33	17.87 ± 2.71	-0.304	0.189	-0.492
els_life_fulfill	1st	77	12.31 ± 3.31		76	13.18 ± 3.31		0.105	-0.549
els_life_fulfill	2nd	34	12.82 ± 2.71	-0.322	33	13.71 ± 2.70	-0.330	0.182	-0.557
els	1st	77	28.92 ± 5.91		76	30.51 ± 5.91		0.098	-0.578
els	2nd	34	29.82 ± 4.80	-0.328	33	31.51 ± 4.78	-0.362	0.151	-0.613
social_connect	1st	77	26.88 ± 9.54		76	26.11 ± 9.54		0.615	0.176
social_connect	2nd	34	27.49 ± 7.73	-0.138	33	23.32 ± 7.70	0.632	0.028	0.946
shs_agency	1st	77	13.81 ± 5.07		76	14.68 ± 5.07		0.286	-0.355
shs_agency	2nd	34	13.99 ± 4.18	-0.077	33	15.45 ± 4.17	-0.309	0.156	-0.587
shs_pathway	1st	77	15.61 ± 3.93		76	16.46 ± 3.93		0.183	-0.429
shs_pathway	2nd	34	15.85 ± 3.27	-0.120	33	16.69 ± 3.26	-0.115	0.293	-0.424
shs	1st	77	29.42 ± 8.58		76	31.14 ± 8.58		0.214	-0.422
shs	2nd	34	29.83 ± 7.02	-0.102	33	32.12 ± 6.99	-0.237	0.184	-0.557
esteem	1st	77	12.57 ± 1.51		76	12.58 ± 1.51		0.976	-0.006
esteem	2nd	34	12.74 ± 1.46	-0.141	33	12.75 ± 1.46	-0.141	0.983	-0.007
mlq_search	1st	77	14.55 ± 3.48		76	15.11 ± 3.48		0.321	-0.251
mlq_search	2nd	34	14.98 ± 3.14	-0.193	33	14.89 ± 3.13	0.097	0.910	0.039
mlq_presence	1st	77	13.17 ± 4.28		76	13.58 ± 4.28		0.554	-0.170
mlq_presence	2nd	34	13.74 ± 3.69	-0.239	33	14.07 ± 3.69	-0.201	0.722	-0.133
mlq	1st	77	27.71 ± 6.93		76	28.68 ± 6.93		0.388	-0.242
mlq	2nd	34	28.71 ± 6.03	-0.249	33	28.98 ± 6.02	-0.074	0.855	-0.067
empower	1st	77	18.88 ± 4.17		76	19.61 ± 4.17		0.286	-0.355
empower	2nd	34	19.57 ± 3.44	-0.338	33	19.57 ± 3.43	0.015	0.998	-0.001
ismi_resistance	1st	77	14.48 ± 2.44		76	14.50 ± 2.44		0.961	-0.012
ismi_resistance	2nd	34	14.33 ± 2.25	0.087	33	15.20 ± 2.25	-0.421	0.116	-0.520
ismi_discrimation	1st	77	11.95 ± 3.11		76	11.32 ± 3.11		0.210	0.371
ismi_discrimation	2nd	34	11.79 ± 2.66	0.090	33	10.96 ± 2.65	0.211	0.197	0.492
sss_affective	1st	77	10.01 ± 3.51		76	9.96 ± 3.51		0.926	0.028
sss_affective	2nd	34	9.90 ± 2.97	0.062	33	8.79 ± 2.96	0.630	0.127	0.596
sss_behavior	1st	77	9.86 ± 3.68		76	9.50 ± 3.68		0.549	0.185
sss_behavior	2nd	34	9.62 ± 3.10	0.124	33	8.79 ± 3.10	0.367	0.276	0.427
sss_cognitive	1st	77	8.23 ± 3.66		76	8.20 ± 3.66		0.951	0.018
sss_cognitive	2nd	34	8.53 ± 3.12	-0.148	33	7.29 ± 3.11	0.453	0.106	0.620
sss	1st	77	28.10 ± 10.09		76	27.66 ± 10.09		0.785	0.093
sss	2nd	34	27.97 ± 8.25	0.028	33	25.00 ± 8.22	0.553	0.142	0.617

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(202.97) = -0.27, p = 0.791, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.32)

2st

t(208.06) = 1.23, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.89)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(192.03) = 0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.80 to 1.01)

2st

t(204.98) = 1.77, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.13 to 2.44)

ras_confidence

1st

t(172.91) = 0.55, p = 0.580, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.09)

2st

t(211.08) = 1.30, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.71 to 3.47)

ras_willingness

1st

t(173.25) = 0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.86)

2st

t(210.84) = 2.09, p = 0.038, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.70)

ras_goal

1st

t(182.45) = 0.76, p = 0.446, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.38)

2st

t(205.97) = 1.71, p = 0.089, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.18 to 2.52)

ras_reliance

1st

t(174.52) = 0.67, p = 0.501, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.61 to 1.24)

2st

t(209.96) = 1.52, p = 0.130, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.27 to 2.13)

ras_domination

1st

t(187.28) = -1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.28)

2st

t(204.98) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.94)

symptom

1st

t(164.01) = 0.12, p = 0.903, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.74 to 3.10)

2st

t(216.00) = -0.54, p = 0.590, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-4.44 to 2.53)

slof_work

1st

t(172.20) = -0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-2.18 to 0.89)

2st

t(211.59) = 0.13, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.83 to 2.09)

slof_relationship

1st

t(170.62) = 0.95, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.82)

2st

t(212.74) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.66 to 4.14)

satisfaction

1st

t(170.83) = 1.42, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.65 to 3.93)

2st

t(212.59) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.59 to 5.20)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(168.02) = 0.90, p = 0.370, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.75)

2st

t(214.52) = 0.85, p = 0.397, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.85 to 2.13)

mhc_social

1st

t(173.07) = 0.53, p = 0.595, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.34)

2st

t(210.96) = 0.96, p = 0.339, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.52)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(172.75) = 0.43, p = 0.671, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.66 to 2.57)

2st

t(211.19) = 0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.11 to 3.32)

resilisnce

1st

t(177.17) = 1.00, p = 0.316, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.19)

2st

t(208.32) = 2.45, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (0.47 to 4.30)

social_provision

1st

t(178.06) = 1.73, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.72)

2st

t(207.84) = 2.73, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (0.47 to 2.91)

els_value_living

1st

t(174.81) = 1.41, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.72)

2st

t(209.77) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.18)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(167.70) = 1.63, p = 0.105, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.93)

2st

t(214.72) = 1.34, p = 0.182, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.19)

els

1st

t(166.58) = 1.67, p = 0.098, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.48)

2st

t(215.33) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.62 to 3.99)

social_connect

1st

t(166.33) = -0.50, p = 0.615, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.82 to 2.27)

2st

t(215.45) = -2.21, p = 0.028, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-7.89 to -0.46)

shs_agency

1st

t(168.22) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.50)

2st

t(214.40) = 1.43, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (-0.56 to 3.46)

shs_pathway

1st

t(169.52) = 1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.40 to 2.10)

2st

t(213.52) = 1.05, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.41)

shs

1st

t(167.45) = 1.25, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.01 to 4.47)

2st

t(214.87) = 1.33, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-1.09 to 5.65)

esteem

1st

t(199.90) = 0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.49)

2st

t(206.81) = 0.02, p = 0.983, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.71)

mlq_search

1st

t(182.45) = 0.99, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.67)

2st

t(205.97) = -0.11, p = 0.910, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.60 to 1.42)

mlq_presence

1st

t(174.76) = 0.59, p = 0.554, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.78)

2st

t(209.80) = 0.36, p = 0.722, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.10)

mlq

1st

t(176.06) = 0.87, p = 0.388, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.18)

2st

t(208.98) = 0.18, p = 0.855, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.63 to 3.17)

empower

1st

t(168.27) = 1.07, p = 0.286, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.61 to 2.05)

2st

t(214.36) = 0.00, p = 0.998, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.65 to 1.65)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(187.16) = 0.05, p = 0.961, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.80)

2st

t(204.99) = 1.58, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.95)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(173.40) = -1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.36)

2st

t(210.73) = -1.29, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-2.12 to 0.44)

sss_affective

1st

t(171.74) = -0.09, p = 0.926, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.17 to 1.07)

2st

t(211.92) = -1.53, p = 0.127, Cohen d = 0.60, 95% CI (-2.54 to 0.32)

sss_behavior

1st

t(171.33) = -0.60, p = 0.549, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.82)

2st

t(212.22) = -1.09, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.32 to 0.67)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(172.96) = -0.06, p = 0.951, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.13)

2st

t(211.04) = -1.62, p = 0.106, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.74 to 0.27)

sss

1st

t(167.41) = -0.27, p = 0.785, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-3.67 to 2.77)

2st

t(214.89) = -1.48, p = 0.142, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-6.94 to 1.00)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(103.94) = 2.25, p = 0.053, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.90)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(92.91) = 1.32, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.55)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(78.40) = 2.86, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (0.57 to 3.18)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(78.62) = 1.16, p = 0.500, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.82)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(85.15) = 1.77, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.74)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(79.48) = 2.52, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.73)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(88.91) = 2.88, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (0.33 to 1.80)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(72.68) = -1.84, p = 0.138, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.61 to 0.14)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(77.92) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.48)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(76.88) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.77)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(77.02) = 1.60, p = 0.227, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.35 to 3.17)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(75.20) = 0.85, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.24)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(78.51) = 1.56, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.64)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(78.29) = 1.17, p = 0.487, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.69)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(81.32) = 3.19, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (0.75 to 3.26)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(81.95) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.07)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(79.68) = 1.29, p = 0.403, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.37)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(74.99) = 1.38, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.28)

els

1st vs 2st

t(74.28) = 1.52, p = 0.268, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.31 to 2.31)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(74.12) = -2.64, p = 0.020, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-4.89 to -0.68)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(75.32) = 1.29, p = 0.399, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.94)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(76.16) = 0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.17)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(74.83) = 0.99, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.92)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(100.50) = 0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.70)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(85.16) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.82)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(79.65) = 0.85, p = 0.790, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.62)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(80.54) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.58 to 2.17)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(75.36) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.94)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(88.82) = 1.82, p = 0.143, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.47)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(78.72) = -0.89, p = 0.748, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.44)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(77.62) = -2.66, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.05 to -0.29)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(77.35) = -1.55, p = 0.252, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.20)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(78.43) = -1.92, p = 0.118, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.03)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(74.81) = -2.32, p = 0.047, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-4.95 to -0.37)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(103.30) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.50)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(92.47) = -0.93, p = 0.704, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.49)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(78.20) = 1.47, p = 0.292, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.24)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(78.42) = -1.38, p = 0.345, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.16)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(84.85) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.94)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(79.27) = 0.94, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.11)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(88.54) = -0.84, p = 0.808, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.42)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(72.57) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-2.45 to 1.25)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(77.74) = -0.85, p = 0.796, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.71 to 0.69)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(76.71) = -0.71, p = 0.965, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.93)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(76.84) = 0.86, p = 0.787, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.99 to 2.48)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(75.05) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.13)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(78.31) = 0.69, p = 0.982, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.97)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(78.10) = 1.01, p = 0.627, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.82 to 2.52)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(81.08) = 0.58, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.60)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(81.69) = -1.55, p = 0.252, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.41 to 0.18)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(79.47) = 0.93, p = 0.708, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.21)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(74.85) = 1.37, p = 0.351, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.26)

els

1st vs 2st

t(74.15) = 1.39, p = 0.337, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.19)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(73.99) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.68)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(75.18) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.35)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(76.00) = 0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.69 to 1.16)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(74.69) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.34)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(99.92) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.69)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(84.85) = 0.84, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.45)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(79.43) = 1.03, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.69)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(80.31) = 1.07, p = 0.572, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.85 to 2.85)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(75.21) = 1.44, p = 0.308, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.64)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(88.45) = -0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.61)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(78.52) = -0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.64)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(77.43) = -0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.98 to 0.75)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(77.17) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.14 to 0.66)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(78.23) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.22)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(74.67) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.39 to 2.12)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance